Hello, my name is Ben Cobley. On this blog I hope to share some of my better thoughts on politics, philosophy, society, and the Left, in addition to some other interesting stuff.
The name A Free Left Blog comes from a concern that the political and cultural Left is dominated by forms of ‘group think’ which shut down free thinking rather than encourage it. I want to challenge this while promoting a Left which is genuinely liberal but rooted in time and place.

12 December 2013

Gender segregation, and a clash of ideologies

‘Segregation’ is quite an emotive word, especially now
with thoughts of Nelson Mandela and apartheid fresh in our minds. But
segregation in practice isn’t such a simple issue as many people make out.

A report from Universities UK offering guidance on how to deal with external
speakers has ignited quite a storm over the issue of segregation, specifically
over a hypothetical case study example ofa religious speaker wishing for his event to be segregated according to
gender.

It’s probably worth quoting the scenario (not quite in
full):

“A representative of
an ultra-orthodox religious group has been invited to speak at an event to
discuss faith in the modern world. The event is part of four different speeches
taking place over the course of a month exploring different approaches to
religion. The initial speaker request has been approved but the speaker has
since made clear that he wishes for the event to be segregated according to
gender. The event organiser has followed agreed processes and raised the issue
with university management. The event has been widely advertised and interest levels
are high.”

The report goes on to consider the different legal and
moral dilemmas involved (see
p29-30) and the issues that university authorities need to bear in mind. One
of its concluding remarks is: “In practice,
a balance of interests is most likely to be achieved if it is possible to offer
attendees both segregated and non-segregated seating areas, although if the
speaker is unwilling to accept this, the institution will need to consider the
speaker’s reasons under equalities legislation.”

This seems reasonable to me, as long as the speaker’s
record of speaking and their explanations for wanting segregation get proper
consideration.

However Nick Cohen among others has written about this in
outrage, in his case in two articles for the Spectator. Cohen is a fine writer for whom I generally have a lot of time. His
book ‘What’s Left? How the Left Lost Its
Way’ is an excellent and much-welcome primer on leftist idiocies from a
left-wing perspective.

He says of the report and its authors: “They insist that the wishes of the
misogynist cleric must be paramount. If he wants sexual segregation, he must
have it, regardless of the views of the audience. It would be an attack on his
human rights to refuse him.”

In this case, Cohen falls right down into the sort of
identity politics which he is often so good at attacking. He attacks sexual segregation
for the fact of a ‘misogynist cleric’ wanting it, rather than for any specific
inequality being practised by segregation of this sort. In other words, he is
privileging the supposed identity of the speaker and their supposed misogyny
rather than the actual practice of segregation.

The Universities UK report made the correct point that,
in this case study example, “Both men and
women are being treated equally, as they are both being segregated in the same
way.” This is crucial, for we can see that inequality is not necessarily
being practised. The report added that if for example women were seated at the
back and men at the front, then there would be a problem, with women
potentially being disadvantaged by being further away and thereby potentially
less involved in debate and questions. This would be an example of
discrimination being practised against women, rather than just simple
discrimination between men and women.

I think we should pick our battles based on principles
which do not discriminate against people for who they are (or, more accurately, who we perceive them to be – because we don’t have access to the real
person), but rather for what they say and do. In that view, we should not
exclude or reject from our universities an Islamist preacher for being an
Islamist preacher. But we should reject someone who lambasts women’s equality
as a crime and calls for the slaying of non-Muslims (or Muslims for that
matter).

What people say and do should be paramount, rather than
our assumptions and suppositions about what they think based on a practice
which is strange to us and which we don’t like. Something may indicate misogyny to us, but if it is not itself misogyny, as is the case with males
and females being divided into separate areas of a lecture theatre, we are
practising prejudice.

Myself, I have already been subjected to strong criticism
and abuse in expressing these views in the comment section of Nick Cohen’s second article, and also in Twitter
exchanges.

As I see it, this is largely about the clash of different
ideologies: in this case Islamism and the mainstream liberal-left’s ‘equalities
agenda’ (with feminism at its forefront). These have been on a collision course
for some time, but the classic liberal-left reluctance to engage with
problematic issues has maintained an uneasy distance between the parties.

On the liberal-left side this often sees the effective
‘outlawing’ in discourse of certain forms of discrimination, calling them out
as examples of inequality.

However, as a principle, opposition to discrimination
falls apart upon even cursory examination, for we discriminate/make choices all
the time in our lives, and so do our public authorities, without imposing any
sort of inequality. We have gender separation in the provision of changing
rooms, toilets, education through single-sex schools, on our sports teams and
in organisations set up around ethnic and gender groupings (like different BAME
groups and women’s networks). These are all forms of discrimination and
segregation, but there is nothing necessarily wrong about them.

To take the point to its ultimate, absurdist, conclusion,
we actually discriminate between men and women by calling them men and women. We discriminate between Muslims and
non-Muslims by calling them Muslims
and non-Muslims (something I was actually attacked as ‘racist’ for saying by one
charming individual on the Cohen comment thread). However, if we called women
inferior or non-Muslims ‘infidels’, that is a discrimination against those groupings – and that is
wrong.

There are wider issues here about the clash of ideologies
and the intensifying Culture Wars taking place in Britain (on the North
American model). As a liberal-lefty myself (albeit not in the mainstream), I
hold the conventional liberal-left ideology as vastly preferable to any
Islamism or other religious ideology that seeks to separate men and women in
lecture theatres and that has hostile and even violent attitudes to
non-believers.

But in the closing off of avenues for conversation and
reconciliation by condemning practices which we don’t like but could easily
tolerate, I think we make a mistake and cause unnecessary antagonism.

We should condemn and ban people only when clear, real
harm is being done.

Otherwise we are simply asserting our own cultural
dominance: which isn’t very liberal, or egalitarian.

Postscript: Universities UK released a further statement clarifying its position, but then withdrew its guidance after criticisms from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, from whom it is now seeking advice about how to proceed.

Postscript 2: A Muslim woman, Myriam Francois Cerrah has published this piece in the Independent giving some background to this issue in terms of concrete circumstances at University College London in March. She says she opposes segregation but also opposes banning it.

8 comments:

If a group came along that wanted white people and black people to sit separately in a lecture theatre while showing both of them respect and not making it a matter of inequality, I'd be uncomfortable and find it profoundly odd, but I couldn't on principle call it 'wrong'. Voluntary racial and religious segregation happens widely in our secondary schools and to an extent in our universities. I don't like that, but I'm not going to go around getting hot and heavy with all those people telling them how they're somehow practising evil wrongdoing by separating themselves like that.

As it happens though, the UUK document says that separating along racial lines would contravene the Equality Act.

The examples on your blog (ethnic/national sports groups/toilets/changing rooms), are not fair analogies because the people using them all want it to be exclusively for their group. For someone who doesn't fit the criteria to be allowed to do the activity with them would defy the purpose why they created or joined the group (e.g. competitive sport between immigrant or social communities, showering with less risk of sexual harrassment; If instead the purpose of an exclusive group was a dislike of outsiders, then people may well have a problem with it). At a lecture/debate in a public institution, the facilities were created for men and women to attend doing the same thing, with those who do not wish to be segregated being able to sit where they wish.

If everyone at an event is against free mixing of the genders (the main Islamic reason for segregation), it would be truely voluntary, no enforcement needed, and I've no problem at all (I don't understand why, but some people are against even that). The problem is that many Muslims are against segregation, or may wish to sit with their friends, or (since the legal advice paragraph specifically refered to "debates") non-Muslims might wish to attend. That's why at very least there must be a mixed area. The legal advice said that in some cases segregation with no mixed area should be considered, which is why I and many people had a problem with it. In practise, even with a mixed area it may not work well and descend into forced segregation for late comers (with the infamous UCL debate it was too small, so a couple of guys were removed when they resisted being forced segregated).

I fear that "voluntary" segregation (using segregated and mixed zones) that actually worked in keeping separate those who want it, would in practise often require forced segregation for those with a different preference. I'd rather just let the students try their best to sit according to their preferences, and at most, politely request that others don't sit near them, without appealing to an authority to enforce anything. It won't work perfectly, but that's as far as I would countenance. I guess you could call that voluntary, best effort, but far from perfect "segregation".

Interesting and mostly good thoughts Anonymous - certainly the best opposition argument to the guidance that I've read, and I've read a lot.

The issue seems to boil down to what is private and what is public. However if an Islamic Society for example decided to ticket an event (something UUK mentioned as a possibility) on the basis of ticket holders accepting segregation, that would probably overcome the practical difficulties which you correctly identify. But also, UUK did advise asking speakers to justify segregation with the institution referring to equalities legislation.

As for the comparisons of different types of segregation, I don't see how it is somehow better for a grouping to exclude as part of their reason for being than segregating in a specific context as part of what is meaningful to them. Discrimination is happening in both cases; only in the first exclusion and inequality is being practised while it isn't in the latter.

I was rereading Myriam FC's article again and thought she made some valid points, some less good ones. I do think the point about single sex schooling is worth attending to. The point about distraction is explicitly invoked as one reason to segregate the sexes until they are 18, not just in a single session, but for their whole educational experience. I think my views are quite close to those of 'Anonymous', and I signed the petition against the guidelines. But I can understand why some people find some of the rhetoric used against segregation a little over the top, or feel there is some selective/disproportionate scrutiny of the issue. I find some of the speakers hosted at these events more concerning than the seating arrangements.

It's a powerful article, for me largely because of its moderation, sanity and sober treatment of the issues. She addresses issues that I skirted around in my articles, on the *effects* of any banning of segregation - it will achieve nothing except driving some Muslim groups away from the mainstream and undermining intelligent engagement with them. If universities are about anything, it is surely not that.